The following press release concerning a near decade long legal action came out today. Not exactly an easy read but good news nevertheless.
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) filed suit against two California school districts in 1998, alleging that the districts were running religious programs in public schools. At the opening of the September, 2005 trial, PLANS refused to present its case without key witnesses and evidence that Judge Frank C. Damrell had excluded
based on his interpretation of federal court rules. This gave the judge no option but to dismiss the case.
PLANS contended that Damrell’s rulings were incorrect, and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After a two-year wait, the appeal was heard November 9, 2007. PLANS was represented by Scott Kendall of Elk Grove, California.
The three-judge panel included John T. Noonan (Harvard, Reagan appointee), M. Margaret McKeown (Georgetown, Clinton appointee), and Edward R. Korman (Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, New York University, Reagan appointee).
Kendall told how the case was ten years old. He pointed out that Waldorf teacher trainer Betty Staley had been listed as both an expert and a percipient witness. Kendall pointed out where in the record Judge Damrell had said that it was a rule that an expert witness couldn’t be a percipient witness. Kendall asserted that there was no such rule. He referred to Brown v. Woodland, where the value of experts in a church-state case was questioned, as the rationale
for PLANS not calling any experts.
Michelle Cannon argued for the defendants. Cannon insisted that the defendants hadn’t heard of Staley being a percipient witness until the day of the trial. That position strained credibility, given that Staley had been deposed by PLANS years ago. Judge Korman interrupted to object that there was no rule, and in any case, what was the harm
in having Staley testify? Judge McKeown also asked pointed questions. Judge Korman suggested a compromise where the district court might hold a hearing to determine whether Staley’s testimony was relevant. Kendall said he wanted all three excluded witnesses, Betty Staley
(Rudolf Steiner College), Crystal Olson (California State University, Sacramento), and Robert Anderson (WestEd).
Judge McKeown asked Kendall to address the issue that defendant Twin Ridges Elementary School District no longer has jurisdiction over the Yuba River Charter School (a Waldorf school). Kendall said PLANS didn’t dispute that fact. McKeown suggested that the substitution of the Nevada County Office of Education, now the chartering authority for the school, as one of the Does named in the complaint was a matter for the district court.
The Court issued a memorandum on November 21, 2007 (Case No.05-17193).
Judge Korman wrote for the court
“The district court erred in excluding the testimony of the witnesses in question. Because PLANS intended to call the witnesses as percipient witnesses, it did not need to comply with the court’s deadline for expert witness disclosure. Moreover, the record indicates that PLANS disclosed the witnesses as early as January 2001. Even if the witnesses had not been properly disclosed, there was no prejudice as the School Districts had previously designated the same witnesses as expert witnesses.”
The court reversed the decision of the district court
(Case No. CV-98-0266 FCD PAN) and remanded the case back to that court.
BACKGROUND
Anthroposophy is the spiritual movement behind the world-wide network of Waldorf schools. PLANS alleges that for Establishment Clause purposes, Anthroposophy is a religious sect. The defendants claim that it is a philosophy. This is a crucial issue in the case. If Anthroposophy isn’t a religious activity, then PLANS can’t allege that taxpayer-funded Waldorf schools violate the Constitution by being entangled with religion. Common references classify Anthroposophy as religious; for example, Encarta: “a religious philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from theosophy, holding that spiritual development should be humankind’s foremost concern.”
PLANS contends that public Waldorf schools are intrinsically and inseparably based on Anthroposophy. Curriculum decisions and teacher training are based on Anthroposophy’s child development theory, which defines stages of reincarnation, a religious doctrine. Science
teaching in Waldorf schools includes crackpot Anthroposophical doctrines like “the heart is not a pump.” The framework for history in Waldorf schools is based on Anthroposophy’s proto-Nazi racial theory. Publicly funded use and reliance on the doctrines of Anthroposophy endorses that religion in violation of the United
States and California constitutions.
PLANS filed its federal lawsuit in Sacramento on February 11, 1998, naming as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District, which operates a “Waldorf Methods” magnet school, and the Twin Ridges Elementary School District, which carried on a veritable franchise operation, establishing six “Waldorf-inspired” charter schools, all
located in other school districts.
In May, 2001, Judge Damrell dismissed the PLANS lawsuit against the two school districts, based on lack of standing. PLANS appealed the decision, and in February, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed PLANS’ right to sue the school districts as taxpayers and reinstated the case.
When the U.S. District Court tried the case in September, 2005, PLANS refused to proceed without the key witnesses and evidence that the judge had excluded, forcing a dismissal. PLANS appealed, and the appeal succeeded. The case now goes back to the Federal District Court, Eastern District of California, in Sacramento.
WHAT IS PLANS?
PLANS was organized in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers concerned about both private and public Waldorf schools. It became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. PLANS’ mission is to provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner, to expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US, and to litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
For more information, please see the PLANS web site,
http://www.waldorfcritics.org.
